The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in this case is that the Defendant is a person engaging in driving a car BK5 car.

On September 30, 2018, the Defendant driven the above car at around 17:20, and got straight along the two-lanes from the direction of the office of the forest management office to the front of the D-do Do 3, located in the city of Busan, Seo-gu, Busan.

At that time, the vehicle signal lights and crosswalks are installed in the front door, and in this case, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to reduce the speed for the person engaged in driving the vehicle and to drive the vehicle in good manner by observing the signal signals of the signal apparatus.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to neglect the front-time, and caused the Defendant’s failure to proceed in contravention of the signal, and caused the Defendant’s bicycle right side side of the Victim F (773) crossing the road along the crosswalk to the right side of the road, which was driven by the Defendant’s front side, to the right side of the road along the crosswalk, to the front side of the vehicle’s driver’s seat even and the rear side.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as herebral bones, herebranes, herebra, etc., which requires approximately four weeks of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

The "Act" is the same.

The court below, on the grounds of its ruling, found the above traffic accident caused by the Defendant’s violation of the Defendant’s signal solely by the victim’s statement that falls short of credibility

On the ground that it is difficult to conclude the above charges, the court acquitted the above charges.

However, since each of the statements made by the victim in the investigative agency and the court below in the court below are specific and consistent, the court below rejected the credibility of the victim's statement and acquitted the victim of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court, based on the facts found in its judgment, finds it difficult for the victim’s investigative agency and the court of the lower court to believe each of the statements in the above facts charged.